They really do bait the buffs, you know. And they did recently. The entire corporate media disseminated the story about Jack Ruby inviting someone he barely knew to "watch the fireworks" in Dealey Plaza.
Of course, it was a hearsay story and would not even be admissible as evidence in court. And the amazing thing is not just that the media reported it but the way they reported it, which was: without criticism, without skepticism, and very matter-of-fact.
But, the story is so transparently preposterous. If Jack Ruby was a conspirator in the JFK assassination, why would he inform someone about it whom he barely knew? In a situation like that, wouldn't most people go to the police? "Hey listen, this guy I know, he told me ahead of time that there was going to be fireworks in Dealey Plaza. He knew! I was with him, and he wasn't the least bit surprised when it happened; he expected it. So, don't you think you should talk to him? His name is Jack Ruby." Why wouldn't Ruby expect that to happen? And what did he need to tell the guy for? What purpose did it serve? How could he possibly be so stupid?
And then, according to the guy, he, himself, was a criminal and shortly afterwards got arrested for a crime (unspecified) and apparently, he wasn't even eligible for bail. He, reportedly, wound up in the Dallas County Jail, where he claimed he got to know Jack Ruby better. And that, of course, is complete, utter bull shit because they kept Ruby away from all other prisoners. Ruby hung out with his jailers, and that is all. He did not fraternize with any other inmates; not a one.
But, let's stop a second and really look at the credibility of this story. What crime could this guy have committed for which he wasn't even eligible for bail? And would he mention committing a crime which landed him in jail without specifying the crime? Why wouldn't he specify it? Does it make any sense at all to refer to a crime without being specific? There are no generic crimes. There are only particular criminal acts. So, what did he do? Heck, if he was unburdening himself, why wouldn't he go all the way and say what it was that he did? Furthermore, since this wound up as an FBI report, why wouldn't the FBI look it up and find out what he did?
Supposedly, this came to light in 1977, and this is 2017, almost 2018. So how, at this late date, could we not know the crime for which this guy was jailed? They had his name: Bob Vanderslice. And he was said to be an FBI informant. Hmm. I wonder what that means. Was he considered an informant for having cited this incident about Ruby? Or was he already considered an informant based on other things? Who knows.
But, the fact that he claimed to get to know Jack Ruby better at the Dallas County Jail proves that Bob Vanderslice was a LIAR. That extra little ditty exposes him as a liar, and it destroys completely his credibility and that of his entire story.
So, why would the mainstream media want to report this, and not just report it, but sell it?
First, I think it was centrally controlled. Somebody above the media decided that they wanted their media puppets to brandish this story. The order came down from above to disperse it. And note that they all reported it the same way, without disputing it, without trashing it, without demeaning it. So, not one skeptic in the entire mainstream media?
So, what are we supposed to believe now? THAT JACK RUBY HAD ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION? But that not only conflicts with the Jack Ruby story and the Oswald killing story; it also conflicts with the official story of the JFK assassination, in which Oswald supposedly did it and told no one.
So, what's the implication? That Oswald did it alone, but he told Jack Ruby? That doesn't make sense. There is no evidence that Oswald and Ruby ever met. You can't seriously suggest that there was a conspiracy between Oswald and Ruby and no one else. If Oswald and Ruby were in on a conspiracy, then there had to be other people involved too. It couldn't just be the two of them.
And one of the myths they keep hammering about Ruby is that he was in deep with the Mafia. Some even claim that it was their nightclub. It isn't true. The Carousel Club was Ruby's nightclub, and he got started in that business because of his sister Eva and not because of the Mafia. There is NO evidence that Ruby was involved with the Mafia in Dallas or even in Chicago.
But, of course, they are going to keep up the myth that he was, and that puts it at being Ruby, Oswald, and the Mafia conspiring to kill Kennedy. That's probably what they were aiming for. So, they were pulling an HSCA, and remember that since 1979, that has been Official Government Story #2.
Still, why would they want to promote this idea? And why now? Was it to reinforce the idea that Ruby did indeed shoot Oswald to silence him? Did someone at the CIA decide that that story needed reinforcing? I wonder why, cough, cough.
But just think about the fact that most of the time, the mainstream media belittles and disparages "conspiracy theorists" in the most derogatory way, making them out to be mentally ill. And yet, here they were, brandishing this conspiracy story, based on hearsay, and on the flimsiest and most questionable and least credible basis, they danced a jig to it. How disgusting. How revolting. And the one thing you can be certain of is that the reason they championed THIS particular conspiracy story is because IT ISN'T TRUE. Don't you get it? False conspiracy stories are the ONLY ones they brandish. They would never brandish a true one. The fact that the mainstream media fell in love with this story tells you that it's false. They were just baiting the buffs. They would never point people in the right direction to reveal the truth about what really happened. Their goal is to mislead people. They'll tolerate people thinking that Jack Ruby was involved in the JFK assassination, that he knew Oswald, and that he had to silence him, etc. because it keeps them away from the truth, which is that Jack Ruby was innocent. That's the thing they have to keep people away from- at any cost.